1879 Verse 2987-2990

Original

समुत्पन्नेऽपि विज्ञाने न तावदवधार्यते ।
यावत्कारणशुद्धत्वं न प्रमाणान्तराद्गतम् ॥ २९८७ ॥
अत्रापि सुधियः प्राहुर्नानवस्थेति येन सा ।
शुद्धिः संवादिनो ज्ञनादनपेक्षात्प्रतीयते ॥ २९८८ ॥
सन्निकृष्टे हि विषये कार्यसंवाददृष्टितः ।
कारणानां विशुद्धत्वमयत्नेनैव गम्यते ॥ २९८९ ॥
विप्रकृष्टे हि विषये तदुद्भूता मतिः प्रमा ।
तज्जन्यत्वाद्यथैवेयं सन्निकृष्टार्थगोचरम् ॥ २९९० ॥

samutpanne’pi vijñāne na tāvadavadhāryate |
yāvatkāraṇaśuddhatvaṃ na pramāṇāntarādgatam || 2987 ||
atrāpi sudhiyaḥ prāhurnānavastheti yena sā |
śuddhiḥ saṃvādino jñanādanapekṣātpratīyate || 2988 ||
sannikṛṣṭe hi viṣaye kāryasaṃvādadṛṣṭitaḥ |
kāraṇānāṃ viśuddhatvamayatnenaiva gamyate || 2989 ||
viprakṛṣṭe hi viṣaye tadudbhūtā matiḥ pramā |
tajjanyatvādyathaiveyaṃ sannikṛṣṭārthagocaram || 2990 ||

“Even when the cognition has come about, its validity is not ascertained until the perfection of its source has been apprehended by another cognition [so that there is an infinite regress].”—(2987)—The answer of the wise ones to this is that there can be no infinite regress; because the said perfection of the source is apprehended by the cognition of conformity, which is not dependent upon anything else; as the conformity of the result is perceived when the object is near by; and from that follows the cognition of the perfection of the sources (of the cognition) without any effort. In the case where the object is not in close proximity, the cognition arising from it must be valid, because it has been brought about by it (the perfect cause),—just like the cognition apprehending the object which is in close proximity (to the observer),—(2987-2990)

Kamalaśīla

Now, the Opponent urges, in Text 2987, the objection that—“in the event of the validity of Cognitions being ascertained through the perfection of its cause (source), there would be an Infinite Regress”;—and this objection is answered in the subsequent Texts 2988-2990:—[see verse 2987-2990 above]

There are two kinds of Cognition—one envisaging the object near the observer, and the other envisaging the object remote from him. As regards the former, its validity is ascertained, not by the recognition of the perfection of its cause, but from the Cognition of its being in conformity to effective activity. Because, in this case, the Cognition of the perfection of its sources is not possible, until its truth is recognised through its conformity to effective action; and when its truth has been recognised, if the Cognition of the perfection of its sources comes later on, it can serve no useful purpose.

As regards the Cognition envisaging remote things, its validity can be ascertained through the Cognition of the perfection of its sources;—this is what is pointed out in the sentence—‘In the case where the object is not in close proximity, etc. etc.’—For instance, the validity of the Cognition of the golden conch-shell, which is far remote from the observer, can be ascertained only from the fact of its being brought about by it,—i.e. being brought about by perfect (efficient) causes,—just like the Cognition of the white conch-shell, which is near the man. This argument may be thus formulated—That Cognition which has been brought about by perfect causes must be valid,—e.g. the Cognition of the white conch-shell, lying near the observer;—this particular Cognition envisaging the remote object, in the shape of the yellow conch-shell, is one that has been brought by perfect causes;—thus this is a reason based upon the nature of the things concerned.—(2987-2990)